Re: RFS: SDLJump
On 2/17/06, Ben Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:48 +0200, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> > udeb definition, and there is no need for D-I to have such a huge
> > sledge hammer in order to break the tiny (vaporware) issue of game
> > loading
> Indulge me another moment, and then I'll shut up. Aren't we just
> talking about one package header vs. another? I just don't see the
> point in a new "X-" header just to flag this one aspect of game packages
> that could just as easily be implemented as a tag. Or if it is a
> "sledgehammer" as you say,
The sledgehammer is debtags itself, not the actual tag; no user will
need without D-I an udeb (at least not one thatknows what he's doing
;-), only the installer will use udebs
the binary udeb package can have different tags than the binary deb,
with no problems; please document yourself about the purpose of udebs,
you will understand better. So having an X- header in the udeb will
not prevent the deb to have an associated debtags tag.
> I'm assuming a user
> might care about locating the subset of packages flagged as D-I game
> material outside of the context of doing an actual install.
I simply can't imagine that scenario. What would be the purpose?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein